Yesterday, a group of Colorado County Sheriffs and private citizens filed suit challenging Colorado's new gun control laws. They allege that the Colorado gun control laws violate the 2nd and 14th Amendments, among other things. It is nice to see members of the government fight to protect the Constitution from libboe infringement!

Colorado sheriffs upset with gun restrictions adopted in the aftermath of last year's mass shootings filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the regulations as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado's 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.

The sheriffs say the new state laws violate Second Amendment protections that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.

The filing targets Colorado laws that limit the size of ammunition magazines and expand background checks. The regulations passed the Legislature this spring and are set to take effect July 1.

It isn't yet clear whether the sheriffs' challenge will delay or jeopardize the laws. The filing, however, guarantees the renewal of a fierce debate over gun control.

Colorado lawmakers passed the restrictions in reaction to the shooting rampage at a suburban Denver movie theater last summer, where 12 people were killed and dozens more were wounded, and the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The gun control debate was one of the most emotionally charged of the legislative session, with lengthy debates and national attention. President Barack Obama added to the attention on the Colorado Statehouse, as his administration unsuccessfully pushed Congress to enact similar gun controls.

Sheriffs' attorneys are considering whether to ask the court for a preliminary injunction, which would block the Colorado laws while the lawsuit moves forward.

The law enforcement community is divided on the issue. In contrast to the sheriffs, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes urban departments, supports the laws. The chiefs said the measures were "common-sense approaches" to protect the public "while not taking guns from law-abiding citizens in any way."

Unlike sheriffs, police chiefs are not elected.

Democrats maintain the public is on their side, and say legislators carefully crafted the proposals that were signed.

"These laws were not constructed haphazardly," said Democratic Sen. Mary Hodge, the sponsor of the magazine limit. "They were constructed to protect us from massacres like the ones we suffered in Aurora and Newtown."

Relatives of victims of the Colorado shooting criticized the sheriffs for filing the lawsuit and accused them of playing politics.

"As a parent who lost my son Alex at the Aurora theater shooting, I ask these people to put themselves in my place," Tom Sullivan said in a statement. "I do not understand why these politicians are picking guns over people."

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and his colleagues were "not the ones playing politics with this."

"We believe that the Legislature were the ones who were playing politics," he said.

Gun control opponents say the language in the regulations is unclear and doesn't provide safeguards to prevent people from inadvertently breaking the laws.

Ammunition magazines, for example, are easily converted to larger sizes, which the bill bans. Gun rights advocates also say the law expanding background checks doesn't provide enough exemptions for temporary transfers and that people conducting private transactions will have a difficult time getting appropriate checks.

Lawmakers allowed several exemptions in the background check legislation, including transfers between immediate family members, shooting events and temporary transfers of up to 72 hours.

State officials, including Attorney General John Suthers, have worked to defend the intent of the laws. Suthers, a Republican responsible for defending the law against the legal challenge, issued a statement Friday giving guidance to law enforcement on how the magazine limit should be enforced.

He said magazine features "must be judged objectively" and that magazines that hold 15 rounds or fewer can't be defined as "large capacity" simply because it can be modified to include more.

Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYesterday, a group of Colorado County Sheriffs and private citizens filed suit challenging Colorado's new gun control laws. They allege that the Colorado gun control laws violate the 2nd and 14th Amendments, among other things. It is nice to see members of the government fight to protect the Constitution from libboe infringement!

Hard to see how banning mags of more than 15 rounds violates anyone's "right to bear arms". How many of the Framers were carting around 30 round mags?

Heller held that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in common use at the time. Heller further held that the government cannot impair the use of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Here, the Sheriffs allege that many firearms in common use today come standard with magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds. Moreover, such magazines are commonly used for self-defense. Disabled persons, for example, use high-capacity magazines for self-defense because their disability impairs their ability to quickly and safely change magazines. Because the magazine ban impairs citizens' ability to use protected firearms for purposes of self-defense, the ban violates the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by MoneyManMikeHeller held that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in common use at the time. Heller further held that the government cannot impair the use of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Here, the Sheriffs allege that many firearms in common use today come standard with magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds. Moreover, such ...[text shortened]... to use protected firearms for purposes of self-defense, the ban violates the Second Amendment.

No one has yet shown any case where a high capacity mag was necessary for self-defense, never mind that it is commonly used for it. Heller's "common use" "reasoning" is incoherent; automatic weapons would surely be in "common use" except for the fact that they are illegal yet Heller strongly implies that laws banning automatic weapons are perfectly constitutional:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

at 55-56.

Moreover high capacity mags were banned in the US for 10 years without any successful Constitutional challenges.

This challenge is a sure loser. Even Heller says:

Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. at 55

And before you go there:

Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Originally posted by MoneyManMikeHeller held that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in common use at the time. Heller further held that the government cannot impair the use of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Here, the Sheriffs allege that many firearms in common use today come standard with magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds. Moreover, such ...[text shortened]... to use protected firearms for purposes of self-defense, the ban violates the Second Amendment.

Please cite a case where a disabled person fired off more than 15 rounds in self-defense using a high capacity mag.

Originally posted by no1marauderNo one has yet shown any case where a high capacity mag was necessary for self-defense, never mind that it is commonly used for it. Heller's "common use" "reasoning" is incoherent; automatic weapons would surely be in "common use" except for the fact that they are illegal yet Heller strongly implies that laws banning automatic weapons are p ...[text shortened]... lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

It doesn't matter historically if anyone has needed a high capacity magazine for protection. What is important is if someone may need one in the future for situations not yet faced.

Originally posted by no1marauderNo one has yet shown any case where a high capacity mag was necessary for self-defense, never mind that it is commonly used for it. Heller's "common use" "reasoning" is incoherent; automatic weapons would surely be in "common use" except for the fact that they are illegal yet Heller strongly implies that laws banning automatic weapons are perfectly constitutional: [shortened]

Your necessity test is entirely incorrect. Heller made clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time. Your discussion of machine guns and M-16's is completely irrelevant since the Sheriffs are merely challenging Colorado's magazine restrictions. However, I will address the AR-15 for arguments sake.

We think it clear enough in the record that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are indeed in “common use,” as the plaintiffs contend. Approximately 1.6 million AR–15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and in 2007 this one popular model accounted for 5.5 percent of all firearms, and 14.4 percent of all rifles, produced in the U.S. for the domestic market. As for magazines, fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians in 1994 were equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds, and approximately 4.7 million more such magazines were imported into the United States between 1995 and 2000. There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.

Nevertheless, based upon the record as it stands, we cannot be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting and therefore whether the prohibitions of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms. We need not resolve that question, however, because even assuming they do impinge upon the right protected by the Second Amendment, we think intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and the prohibitions survive that standard.

In sum, the AR-15 and magazines with more than ten rounds are in common use today. Therefore, they fall within the protection of the Second Amendment.

Still, Heller II held that the assault weapons and 10 plus round magazine bans were constitutional. That holding was erroneous for two reasons. First, the court applied the wrong standard of review. Second, the court applied the wrong test.

The court applied intermediate scrutiny notwithstanding McDonald v. Chicago, which held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right necessary to our system of ordered liberty. As you know, the court is suppose to apply strict scrutiny whenever the law burdens a fundamental right. The court didn't follow clear precedent for curious reasons.

Which brings me to my second point that the court applied the wrong test. Mcdonald made clear that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Heller II, however, held that because citizens are still allowed to own handguns for self-defense, D.C. could ban assault rifles and the ten round plus magazines. That is patently the wrong test. Once the court determines that the firearm is in common use at the time, the inquiry is over. Put differently, the court doesn't get to decide which guns in common use at the time the people can have. That is a completely absurd reading of Heller and McDonald.

But even if Heller II applied the right test, the court was clearly wrong because it is axiomatic that AR-15's are used for lawful purposes such as hunting, recreation, and self-defense. If someone breaks into my home and I am next to my AR-15, I am obviously going to use it against the intruder.

Originally posted by MoneyManMikeHeller held that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in common use at the time. Heller further held that the government cannot impair the use of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Here, the Sheriffs allege that many firearms in common use today come standard with magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds. Moreover, such to use protected firearms for purposes of self-defense, the ban violates the Second Amendment.

so basically, a civilian should be able to own sniper rifles, miniguns, grenade launchers, mortar, law missiles, armor piercing bullets, incendiary bullets, and basically anything "in use at the time"

in the future, civilians should be able to get lasers, plasma rifles, and that phasor thingie that disintegrates people on startrek.

Originally posted by Zahlanziin the future, civilians should be able to get lasers, plasma rifles, and that phasor thingie that disintegrates people on startrek.

You libboes should develop a phaser that I can set to stun so my family won't get maimed from an accidental discharge. You libboes should also develop "precog" technology, like that seen in Minority Report, so that you can prevent nut jobs from shooting up public places. Don't expect conservatives to come up with these necessary innovations. Conservatives aren't enlightened like their cosmopolitan counterparts (i.e. libboes).

Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYour necessity test is entirely incorrect. Heller made clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time. Your discussion of machine guns and M-16's is completely irrelevant since the Sheriffs are merely challenging Colorado's magazine restrictions. However, I will address the AR-15 for arguments sake.

[i]Heller II o my home and I am next to my AR-15, I am obviously going to use it against the intruder.

Your are addressing something that I didn't rely on. I don't care about AR-15's; either deal with the point I raised or concede that you have no answer. Heller was reasonably clear that M-16's and automatic weapon bans would be upheld and gave no reason to believe that bans on high capacity mags would not be. I suggest you deal with the points raised.